Under a DACA amnesty, American taxpayers would be left with a $26 billion bill. About one in five DACA illegal aliens, after an amnesty, would end up on food stamps, while at least one in seven would go on Medicaid. Since DACA’s inception under Obama, more than 2,100 illegal aliens have been kicked off the program after it was revealed that they were either criminals or gang members. JOHN BINDER

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Number of Unaccompanied Kids Crossing Border Has Doubled in Last Year By Joel Gehrke National Review Online, November 25, 2015 . . . About 3,400 people cleared to receive the children “have later been determined to have criminal convictions including re-entry after deportation, DUI, burglary, distribution of narcotics, domestic violence, homicide, child molestation, and sexual assault,” Senate majority whip John Cornyn and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley wrote in a Monday letter to HHS and the Department of Homeland Security.. . .http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427651/border-crisis-unaccompanied-kids-crossing-doubled-last-year

WHO ELSE IS JUMPING OUR BORDERS AND THEN VOTING DEM FOR MORE???

"When Turkey was admitted to NATO in 1952, the Cold War was ramping up and the nation was relatively secular. Today, however, it’s well known that Turkey has been Islamizing and that its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is an Islamic supremacist. Also note that Turkey was the location of the last great Islamic caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. And some think that just as Benito Mussolini wanted to resurrect the glories of the Roman Empire, Erdoğan and others want to reclaim the far more recent Ottoman dominance."

Turkey: Why Muslim Nations Shouldn't be Part of NATO

With NATO member Turkey’s recent downing of a Russian aircraft sparking fears of WWIII, a rather politically incorrect question needs to be asked: should a Muslim nation have NATO membership?

Having a country as part of the NATO alliance is no small matter. Since an attack on one member nation is considered an attack on all, an escalation of the Russian-Turk crisis resulting in military action against Turkey by Russia could, conceivably, lead to a WWIII. This is why it’s imperative that NATO members be rational actors.

As to this, I have a theory about the shoot-down of the Russian plane. It’s just a theory, and admittedly it’s “probably” not the explanation in this case. Yet I think it’s worthy of consideration, especially since it could be a factor — and a profoundly dangerous one — at some point in the future.

When Turkey was admitted to NATO in 1952, the Cold War was ramping up and the nation was relatively secular. Today, however, it’s well known that Turkey has been Islamizing and that its president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is an Islamic supremacist. Also note that Turkey was the location of the last great Islamic caliphate, the Ottoman Empire. And some think that just as Benito Mussolini wanted to resurrect the glories of the Roman Empire, Erdoğan and others want to reclaim the far more recent Ottoman dominance.

Now, let’s say you’re an Islamic supremacist regime leading an Islamizing nation. Let’s say that, as is par for that course, you believe the whole Earth should be conquered for Islam and have an apocalyptic worldview. You look at the geopolitical scene and see a decrepit, secularizing West on one side, a place that itself is being Islamized as it slowly descends into irrelevancy. And opposing this you see Vladimir Putin’s Russia, the only remaining major nation unapologetically Christian, a nation that has rejected the West’s destructive leftist agenda (Putin himself, whether it’s principle or posturing, has served notice that Russia is willing to be Christianity’s standard bearer). Before elaborating further, it must be emphasized that an Islamic apocalyptic worldview is so foreign to most Westerners that they can’t even conceive of it. As to this, however, it has been said that if former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had supreme decision-making power in his land, he would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel.” Remember, we’re dealing with adherents who frequently blow themselves up in an effort to take just a few non-believers with them. And with this suicide/homicide-bomber mentality so prevalent, it does follow that, sometime, somewhere, it would have to penetrate into Muslim halls of government.

So let’s say this is your mindset. Is it unfathomable to think you might want to start a war between the Christian and secular “infidels”? Might you not hope that Russia would be destroyed or at least neutered and that the already waning West, in a Pyrrhic victory’s wake, would be left teetering and all the more susceptible to a hot or cold Muslim takeover?

Even if what resulted wasn’t the sudden rise of the final and greatest caliphate, it’s logical to assume that a WWIII could lead to a new world order. Also realize that most of Dar al-Islam (that apart from Turkey) would most probably sit on the sidelines during such an affair; thus, it would likely emerge stronger relative to the West and the rest than it had been before. Turkey, of course, would take it on the chin as part of NATO. But what does that matter to a “half my country for Allah” type?

Also note that it wouldn’t have to be the Turkish regime’s official policy to spark such a war for the action in question to be taken; rogue elements within the government or military could be enough. And regardless of how it all shook out, wouldn’t the prospect of getting the “infidels” to kill each other be very attractive to a suicide-homicide-vest type? All it means for the Muslim “collateral damage” is that a lot of men get their 72 virgins far sooner. And given that jihadists have sacrificed themselves for the sake of killing just a few non-believers, what kind of an appeal do you think wiping out millions of them would hold?

Once again, the aforementioned is just a theory, and an unlikely explanation, insofar as the downing of the Russian plane goes. But how likely or unlikely is it that it could be a factor in the future? All we need is just one apocalyptic jihadist at the right nation’s helm.

There are two Islamic countries in NATO, Turkey and Albania. The latter is only 58 percent Muslim and a quarter irreligious, yet even it spawns some terrorists. And is having Muslim nations in NATO much like having Muslim individuals in the West? Is it just a matter of time before one of them takes up the sword for Allah?

Of course, many will scoff. It’s important here, however, not to fall victim to that common human failing of mirroring, when we project our own values, priorities and mindset onto others. As Michael Caine’s character explained in the film The Dark Knight, “[S]ome men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

The Danger in Islamic Prayer

It is crucial that Westerners discover what Muslims are saying when they recite the Islamic mandatory prayers before sharing their places of worship. A few days ago, an Ontario synagogue invited Muslim worshippers to lead the Friday prayer. This article explains what the Islamic daily prayers mean, with focus on the Friday prayer within the context of Islamic law or sharia. Being better informed will make Westerners think twice before opening the doors to Muslim for prayer.Canadian Muslims in southern Ontario were invited to preach the supremacy of Islam at a local synagogue and church. In a goodwill gesture, Peterborough’s Mark Street United Church and Beth Israel Synagogue opened their doors to Muslims for prayer following the recent fire damage of the Masjid al-Salaam mosque. President of the Beth Israel Synagogue and his board of directors hosted two Islamic prayer sessions this past Friday with not even a suspicion that the underlying theme in Islamic prayer is to curse and do away with nonbelievers like them.

A deep hatred and rejection of Judaism and Christianity are hardwired into Islamic doctrine, including the Koran. Many of its chapters are incorporated into mandatory daily Islamic prayer. The very first Koranic chapter, considered the most exalted of all chapters, is a prayer directed to Allah asking him to keep Muslims away from the misguided path of Jews and Christians. This chapter is a necessary part of the five mandatory daily prayers, and is recited not once, but anywhere from 17 to 100 times a day by devout Muslims (or in a broader sense, 6200 to 36,500 times a year).Repetition priming inculcates the notion of superiority over non-Muslims into the minds of all Muslims, instilling a deep mistrust of non-Muslims: “Guide us along the right path, the path of those whom you favored (referring to Muslims), and not along the path of those who earn your anger (referring to Jews), or those who go astray (referring to Christians). The references to Jews and Christians are in accord with Al-Tirmidhi’s authentic hadiths (or Islamic narrations attributed to Mohammed) and other venerated Islamic interpretations, as reflected in some English translations of the Koran.Friday prayers also include recitation of Koranic chapters 62 and 63 where Jews who reject Allah’s commandments in the Torah are loathed and compared to “the likeness of a donkey carrying books but understands them not.” Jews are told to “long for death” if they pretend to be Allah’s favorite. Nonbelievers are condemned to a state of error until Mohammed is sent by Allah to purify them “from the filth of disbelief and polytheism” with his verses or revelations from Allah. “Hypocrites” or apostates from Islam are considered enemies, “so beware of them, may Allah destroy them!". Is it any wonder why many Muslims are prohibited from being friends with Jews and Christians? The Koran condemns them to hell (which melts their skin and bellies) in nearly 500 verses for not believing in Mohammed and for not converting to Islam.Such are the prayers that are recited over and over again in mosques, and now in some churches and synagogue across the world as more Muslim communities continue to grow and expand. Oblivious to the ignorant Jewish and Christian hosts -- whom the Koran portrays as sons of apes and pigs and as the worst of creatures -- those very same prayers were recently recited by the Peterborough mosque’s muezzin (one who recites the Islamic call to prayer) in the local church and synagogue. His sonorous and somber voice evoked emotion and tears expressing compassion and admiration of Islam during the Islamic prayer session at the Mark Street United Church a couple of Fridays ago.Little did these people know that he was chanting verses expressing disgust and disdain for nonbelievers, such as themselves. They appeared to be in a trancelike stupor as if undergoing a spiritual awakening -- despite not understanding one word of Arabic prayer that calls for their rejection and eradication due to their misguided behavior. If they only knew what Islamic prayers meant in English, they would not be shedding tears of ignorance, and certainly thinking twice before allowing Muslims to pray in their places of worship. Love thy neighbor should not be a one-way street.The Peterborough mosque’s imam Shazin Khan, along with other imams and Islamic spokespeople, uses a common deceptive tactic to show the Church audience that Islam cares about people of all religious faiths. He repeats only part of a well-known Koranic verse taken from the Jerusalem Talmud, asserting that saving one human being is like saving all of humanity. However, unlike the original Talmudic verse that applies equally to all humans, the Koranic verse was modified and prohibits only the murder of Muslims. This verse in its entirety is in accord with Islamic law or sharia, which applies the death penalty for killing Muslims, not non-Muslims.Referring to Judaism and Islam, Kenzu Abdella, president of the Kawartha Muslim Religious Association (in the Peterborough area near Toronto) who formed an alliance with Larry Gillman, President of the Beth Israel Synagogue, informed the Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation that “we have more similarities than differences. We have so much common”.Contrary to his claim, the differences are so great that 57 Islamic states united in the highly influential Organization of Islamic Cooperation rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that views all people as equal and free, and replaced it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) that views people as neither equal nor free.The CDHRI, being subject to sharia, limits the right to freedom of religion and expression according to what sharia permits. Women have lesser rights than men, as do non-Muslims than Muslims. Slavery is allowed as it still has not been abolished in Islam. Human rights in Islam rely upon the most illiberal, draconian, and barbaric corporal punishments imaginable. Where are the similarities?Mr. Abdella failed to mention that Islam considers itself the mother religion of both Judaism and Christianity, that it existed prior to those two false religions that veered away from the path of strict monotheism. They became corrupt and ignorant until Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to set things straight and convert all back to Islam or “the religion of true unspoiled nature”, as per the CDHRI.The Islamic end-times, according to Bukhari, the most authentic of all hadith collections, occurs when Jesus, considered the last Muslim prophet in Islam, returns to earth to destroy Christianity (“break the cross”) and forces all to convert or die. But until such a time, radical Muslims must continue waging jihad against Christians and Jews who pay an Islamic tax called jizya that masquerades as halal products to support Islamic terrorism worldwide.It’s long past time that Westerners familiarize themselves with Islam and think twice before rolling out the welcome mats in their places of worship, especially in light of the tens of thousands of unvetted Muslim migrants coming soon to a city near you. Westerners who remain true to their faith by reaching out to Muslim neighbors with compassion will soon find out the hard way that mutual respect can never exist amongst different religions when one views itself as the perfect and supreme religion above all others, as Islam does.

BLOG:OBAMA-CLINTON-BUSH CRONIES, THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS DO NOT PERMIT PLACES OF WORSHIP IN THEIR DICTATORS FOR CHRISTIAN OR JEWS. LET US LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY "INVESTED" BY THE SAUDIS IN THE CLINTON AND BUSH LIBRARIES! LET US LOOK AT OBAMA'S LONG HISTORY OF KISSING THE ASSES OF THE INVADING SAUDIS!Before sharing premises with Muslim worshippers, ask yourself the following question: would Muslims anywhere ever allow Jews or Christians into a mosque sanctuary to lead a Jewish or Christian prayer service?

A deep hatred and rejection of Judaism and Christianity are hardwired into Islamic doctrine, including the Koran. Many of its chapters are incorporated into mandatory daily Islamic prayer. The very first Koranic chapter, considered the most exalted of all chapters, is a prayer directed to Allah asking him to keep Muslims away from the misguided path of Jews and Christians. This chapter is a necessary part of the five mandatory daily prayers, and is recited not once, but anywhere from 17 to 100 times a day by devout Muslims (or in a broader sense, 6200 to 36,500 times a year).Before sharing premises with Muslim worshippers, ask yourself the following question: would Muslims anywhere ever allow Jews or Christians into a mosque sanctuary to lead a Jewish or Christian prayer service?

Obama's grand anti-ISIS coalition has fallen apart

When President Obama began the bombing campaign against the Islamic State, he crowed that he had assembled an "unprecedented" coalition of 65 countries, including the active participation of the air forces of the Arab Gulf States.Now, officials involved in the air campaign against ISIS say that barely a dozen countries are contributing anything at all to the fight, and the Arab Gulf States haven't carried out a bombing mission in months.

And behind closed doors, administration and military officials admit that air support from such key Arab allies as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — something the White House once touted as an unprecedented and essential part of the coalition — has all but evaporated.

One Pentagon official directly involved in the counter-Islamic State fight told The Washington Times that the Saudis haven’t flown a mission against the group in nearly three months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bahrain is still involved, but confirmed that Jordan stopped flying sorties against the extremists in August and the UAE hasn’t flown one since March.A top former Obama administration official who helped build the coalition last year, meanwhile, said that Persian Gulf Arab powers made a strategic gamble months ago to focus their military resources on helping Saudi Arabia wage war against Houthi rebels seen as Iranian proxies in neighboring Yemen — wagering that the U.S. and the European Union would lead the fight against Islamic State.During the months leading up to last summer’s nuclear deal between Tehran and the West, Yemen had emerged as ground zero for a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia, the Middle East’s top Sunni Muslim power, and Iran, the region’s largest Shiite power.The months since have seen waves of Arab air and ground offensives carried out against the Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen, with a particularly deadly day occurring in early September, when 45 UAE solders and five troops from Bahrain were killed in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia – indeed, the world – will fight the Islamic State to the last dead American. The world may scream bloody murder when American troops are deployed to fight tyrants, but most nations are secretly relieved. They get the benefit of not having to fight a potential threat while also being able to trash the U.S., which answers a need in their domestic politics. In truth, only America with her vast resources would be capable of taking down the Islamic State – if we were of a mind to. Russia's military is strained by deploying a few squadrons of bombers and fighters to Syria, along with a few combat troops. They do not have the ability to project massive, overwhelming force overseas. This does not bode well. If the Gulf States, who are threatened existentially by ISIS, won't defend themselves from the threat, why should we be forced to do the job? This should serve as a wake-up call for the Arabs; the U.S. will not fight your battles for you anymore.

When President Obama began the bombing campaign against the Islamic State, he crowed that he had assembled an "unprecedented" coalition of 65 countries, including the active participation of the air forces of the Arab Gulf States.Now, officials involved in the air campaign against ISIS say that barely a dozen countries are contributing anything at all to the fight, and the Arab Gulf States haven't carried out a bombing mission in months.BLOG: BARACK OBAMA - THE MUSLIM DICTATORS' LAP BITCH!Washington Times:

And behind closed doors, administration and military officials admit that air support from such key Arab allies as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) — something the White House once touted as an unprecedented and essential part of the coalition — has all but evaporated.

One Pentagon official directly involved in the counter-Islamic State fight told The Washington Times that the Saudis haven’t flown a mission against the group in nearly three months. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that Bahrain is still involved, but confirmed that Jordan stopped flying sorties against the extremists in August and the UAE hasn’t flown one since March.A top former Obama administration official who helped build the coalition last year, meanwhile, said that Persian Gulf Arab powers made a strategic gamble months ago to focus their military resources on helping Saudi Arabia wage war against Houthi rebels seen as Iranian proxies in neighboring Yemen — wagering that the U.S. and the European Union would lead the fight against Islamic State.During the months leading up to last summer’s nuclear deal between Tehran and the West, Yemen had emerged as ground zero for a proxy war pitting Saudi Arabia, the Middle East’s top Sunni Muslim power, and Iran, the region’s largest Shiite power.

The months since have seen waves of Arab air and ground offensives carried out against the Iran-backed Houthi forces in Yemen, with a particularly deadly day occurring in early September, when 45 UAE solders and five troops from Bahrain were killed in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia – indeed, the world – will fight the Islamic State to the last dead American. The world may scream bloody murder when American troops are deployed to fight tyrants, but most nations are secretly relieved. They get the benefit of not having to fight a potential threat while also being able to trash the U.S., which answers a need in their domestic politics. In truth, only America with her vast resources would be capable of taking down the Islamic State – if we were of a mind to. Russia's military is strained by deploying a few squadrons of bombers and fighters to Syria, along with a few combat troops. They do not have the ability to project massive, overwhelming force overseas. BLOG: THE WORLD'S BIGGEST FINANCERS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM AND HATE TOWARDS AMERICA ARE THE SAUDIS - AMERICA'S 9-11 INVADERS!This does not bode well. If the Gulf States, who are threatened existentially by ISIS, won't defend themselves from the threat, why should we be forced to do the job? This should serve as a wake-up call for the Arabs; the U.S. will not fight your battles for you anymore.

Sen. Sessions Wants to Defund Refugee Admissions Program By Warren Mass The New American, November 24, 2015 . . . With the rise of the refugee crisis stemming from the turmoil in Iraq and Syria, and especially since the November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris in which ISIS is suspected of playing an important role, Sessions and many others concerned about our nation’s weak or non-existent security screening of aliens have shared their concerns. In his speech, Sessions addressed the matter of security as follows:

The President persists in this plan even though his own officials, testifying before my Immigration Subcommittee, conceded there is no database in Syria with which to vet refugees…. The FBI director tells us there are now active ISIS investigations in all 50 U.S. states.

Our subcommittee has identified dozens of examples of foreign-born immigrants committing and attempting acts of terror on U.S. soil. Preventing and responding to these acts is an effort encompassing thousands of federal agents and attorneys and billions of dollars: in effect, we are voluntarily admitting individuals at risk for terrorism and then, on the back end, trying to stop them from carrying out their violent designs.

Sessions quoted a warning made by the former head of the Citizenship and Immigration Services union (which represents immigration caseworkers) more than a year ago: “It is also essential to warn the public about the threat that ISIS will exploit our loose and lax visa policies to gain entry to the United States.”

And Sessions is not alone in the Senate in having such reservations about the Obama refugee plan. He continued:

Senator [Ted] Cruz [R-Texas] and I sent the Administration a list of 72 individuals charged or convicted of terrorism in just the last year. We asked for the immigration histories of each individual. Stunningly, the Administration refused to respond.

It would be unthinkable for Congress to acquiesce to the President’s refugee funding request when he refuses to even publicly disclose the immigration history of these 72 terrorists, many of whom are involved with ISIS.

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.

On Friday, the U.S. Justice Department filed a 35-page petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Texas v. U.S., the case filed by 26 states against President Obama’s immigration amnesty plan.

The government is appealing a preliminary injunction that stopped implementation of Obama’s amnesty plan, which was issued by a federal district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Nov. 9.

In an odd coincidence, Donald Verrilli, the solicitor general, filed the petition on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s speech to the nation on Nov. 20, 2014, where he announced his unprecedented, unilateral action to violate federal immigration law and provide lawful status and work permits to as many as five million illegal aliens.

The government’s petition asks the Supreme Court to take up the case, despite the fact that this is only a preliminary injunction. No permanent injunction has been issued, and no trial has yet been held. But Verrilli claims that review is needed now because of the “great and immediate significance” of the president’s amnesty plan and “the irreparable injury to the many families affected by delay in its implementation, and the broad importance of the questions presented.”

Of course, given that the Obama administration has virtually stopped all of its deportation procedures, with only some exceptions for certain criminal aliens, it is hard to imagine what “irreparable injury” all of these illegal aliens will suffer, since they have, in all practical terms, been granted “lawful presence” already even without the president’s official amnesty plan in place.

It is true that the preliminary injunction prevents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from issuing work permits to illegal aliens, but even that is probably not that significant for many of them, because employers all over the country know that the administration has no interest in enforcing federal law barring employers from hiring illegal aliens.

What Is the Government Arguing?

The government makes the same losing arguments to the Supreme Court that it made to the Fifth Circuit, all of which were disposed of by the court of appeals in a very thorough, well-written opinion. Verrilli claims none of the states even have standing to sue the federal government because any costs they incur from illegal aliens being granted lawful presence are just “voluntary.” This is almost a farcical argument, given the enormous education, health care, and law enforcement costs imposed on the states with the influx of huge numbers of illegal aliens into their communities.

Verrilli also makes the over-the-top claim that this injunction is “unprecedented” and “in violation of established limits on the judicial power.” Thus, “if left undisturbed, that ruling will allow States to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws” (emphasis added). Given how far outside the “established limits” of the president’s executive power under the Constitution the immigration amnesty plan is, claiming that it is the courts—and not the administration—acting outside the scope of their constitutional powers is almost insulting.

And it is quite audacious to accuse the courts of frustrating the administration’s “enforcement of the Nation’s immigration laws” when the whole policy of this president is to frustrate enforcement of our immigration laws.

As the Fifth Circuit pointed out, it was the president himself who said that because Congress refused to amend our immigration laws to suit his interests, he had to “change the law” himself. That is a far cry from enforcing our current immigration laws as passed by Congress and signed into law by this or a prior president.

The Administrative Procedure Act

The government also reiterates the unsuccessful arguments made in the lower courts that the states have no claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the issuance of new regulations and rules by government agencies.

The solicitor general continues to claim that Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, had “ample authority to issue” the “guidance” that implemented the president’s amnesty plan, including not just giving illegal aliens “lawful presence” status in the U.S. so they cannot be removed or deported, but also providing them with work permits.

Verrilli argues that the immigration amnesty plan and Johnson’s “guidance” should be exempt from all notice and comment requirements under the APA because otherwise “it threatens far-reaching consequences by constraining needed flexibility to adapt enforcement policies to changing circumstances and priorities.” To the contrary, the whole point of the APA is to force federal agencies like DHS to provide notice and an opportunity for the public to comment on major changes in rules, regulations, and policies.

The APA doesn’t stop agencies from having the flexibility needed to adapt to “changing circumstances and priorities,” but it makes sure they don’t do so in secret on an arbitrary and capricious basis without the public and individuals who will be affected by these changes having a chance to influence the agency. This is vitally important, since the purpose of the executive branch is to serve the best interests of the public as a whole, something that does not always seem to be the objective of this administration.

On Nov. 23, the Texas solicitor general, Scott Keller, sent a request to the Supreme Court asking for an extension of time to respond to the Justice Department’s petition until Jan. 20, 2016. Keller cited “pressing deadlines” in numerous other Texas cases before the Supreme Court, including oral argument in Evenwel v. Abbott, a redistricting case, which is scheduled for Dec. 8.

There is one thing that the government gets right: This is an important case that is vital to the future of this country, although certainly not in the way the administration claims. This case is about the rule of law and the constitutional limits on the power of the executive branch. So the Supreme Court may very well take the case. If they do, we have to hope that they uphold the injunction and don’t allow the president to act as an unchecked monarch who can change whatever laws he doesn’t like at will.

Lawless: The Obama Adminstration’s Uprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law

Overview: In Lawless, George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein offers a scholarly and unsettling account of how the Obama Administration has undermined the Constitution and the rule of law. He documents how the President has presided over one constitutional debacle after another – from Obamacare to unauthorized wars in the Middle East to attempts to strip property owners, college students, religious groups, and conservative political activists of their rights, and more.

Respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers has been violated time and again. Whether in amending Obamacare on the fly or signing a memorandum legalizing millions of illegal immigrants, the current Administration ignores not only Congress, but also the Constitution’s critical checks and balances.

In Lawless, Professor Bernstein shows how the Constitution as well as the President’s own stated principles have been betrayed. In doing so, serious and potentially permanent damage has been done to our constitutional system and repairs must be addressed by the next President of the United States.

Recently, the Justice Department announced it would not be indicting anyone for his or her role in the most serious domestic political scandal since the Nixon years.Starting in 2010, the IRS, under pressure from congressional Democrats and the White House, engaged in blatant ideologically motivated discrimination against conservative organizations applying for non-profit status.That the most feared bureaucracy in Washington was making decisions based on illegal political criteria should send a chill down the spine of any American who cares about the First Amendment and the rule of law.Yet the Department of Justice has refused to indict even IRS official Lois Lerner, who invoked her Fifth Amendment right to silence to avoid incriminating herself in testimony before Congress.Unfortunately, the failure to prosecute anyone responsible for abusing the IRS’s authority reflects the Obama administration’s broader contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law.Consider just a few examples:

Going to war in Libya in blatant violation of the War Powers Resolution, and in defiance of the legal advice of the president’s own lawyers, based on the ridiculous theory that bombing the heck out of Libya did not constitute “hostilities” under the law

Issuing draconian regulations regarding sexual assault on campus not through formal, lawful regulation but through an informal, and unreviewable, “dear colleague” letter

Ignoring 100 years of legal rulings and the plain text of the Constitution and trying to get a vote in Congress for the D.C. delegate

Trying to enact massive immigration reform via an executive order demanding that the Department of Homeland Security both refuse to enforce existing immigration law, and provide work permits to millions of people residing in the U.S. illegally

Imposing common core standards on the states via administrative fiat

Ignoring bankruptcy law and arranging Chrysler’s bankruptcy to benefit labor unions at the expense of bondholders

Trying to strip churches and other religious bodies of their constitutional right to choose their clergy free from government involvement.

More generally, the president has abandoned any pretense of trying to work with Congress, as the Constitution’s separation of powers requires. He prefers instead to govern by unilateral executive fiat, even when there is little or no legal authority supporting his power to do so.Presidents trying stretch their power as far as they can is hardly news. What is news, however, is that top Obama administration officials, including the president himself, see this not as something to be ashamed of, but as a desirable way of governing, something to brag about rather than do surreptitiously.Obama behaves as if there is some inherent virtue in a president governing by decree and whim, as if promoting progressive political ends at the expense of the rule of law is proper not simply as a desperate last resort but as a matter of principle.After all, Obama says, democracy is unduly “messy” and “complicated.” “We can’t wait,” the president intones, as he ignores the separation of powers again and again, ruling instead through executive order.“Law is politics,” and only politics, according to a mantra popular on the legal left, and therefore the law should not be an independent constraint to doing the right thing politically. Obama seems to agree.As Obama’s lawlessness has received increased attention from Congress, the (conservative) media, and the general public, the president has been defiant, even petulant. When confronted by allegations of lawlessness, Obama takes no responsibility, and doesn’t even bother to defend the legality of his actions.Harry S. Truman famously said “the buck stops here.” Obama responds to serious concerns about his administration’s lawlessness with a derisive “so sue me.”As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley writes, Obama “acts as if anything a court has not expressly forbidden is permissible.” And in many situations, no one has legal standing to challenge the president’s actions in court—which means that no judge can stop the administration’s lawbreaking.So sue me? If only we could.On Tuesday, Nov. 17, David Bernstein will be at The Heritage Foundation at noon for an event about his book, “Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” More details here.

Number of Unaccompanied Kids Crossing Border Has Doubled in Last Year By Joel Gehrke

National Review Online, November 25, 2015 . . . About 3,400 people cleared to receive the children “have later been determined to have criminal convictions including re-entry after deportation, DUI, burglary, distribution of narcotics, domestic violence, homicide, child molestation, and sexual assault,” Senate majority whip John Cornyn and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley wrote in a Monday letter to HHS and the Department of Homeland Security. . . .http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427651/border-crisis-unaccompanied-kids-crossing-doubled-last-year

Importing Terrorism and Other American Values By Ann CoulterHuman Events Online, November 25, 2015 . . . Contrary to Obama’s laughable reference to “the universal values” that “all of humanity” share, most of the world does not share our values, at all. They barely seem to share our DNA. As indignantly explained by the lawyer representing two Iraqis accused of child rape in Nebraska, America’s views about women and children “put us in the minority position in the world.”

Syrian Leader: Impossible to Weed Terrorists Out of Migrants Coming to U.S.

By Selwyn DukeThe New American, November 23, 2015. . .It has now been confirmed: It is simply impossible to sufficiently vet the Muslim migrants entering our nation. Intelligence officials have said it. The Greek government has said it. And now a New York City Syrian community leader has this to say about Barack Obama’s claim that it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and other migrants: “Are you out of your mind?”He is 57-year-old Aarafat “Ralph” Succar. Having arrived in the United States at age 10 and living in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, home of the Big Apple’s largest Syrian-immigrant enclave, Succar can straddle two very different worlds. One of them is a source of terrorists.The other world is taking them in.As the New York Post wrote late last week, “[Succar] told The Post on Wednesday that ISIS terrorists have ‘absolutely’ sneaked into America by posing as civil-war refugees — and joined sleeper cells just waiting to be activated. ‘I believe the terrorists from Syria have been coming into the United States, not only in the past few years, but way before that…. I think they’re already at work."Despite this, the Obama administration is still at work trying to convince our nation’s governors otherwise. As the Associated Press just reported, "‘In short, the security vetting for this population — the most vulnerable of individuals — is extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive,’ Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson write in letters sent to all state and territorial governors and to the mayor of Washington, D.C.” Furthermore, the administration claims migrants who arrive on our shores via “its resettlement program undergo a ‘rigorous security vetting process,’ particularly if they are fleeing from Syria,” writes the AP.. . .Succar echoes many who’ve warned that terrorist-spawning nations lack the databases necessary for vetting. As he put it, “Third World countries, particularly places like Syria, do not have the network of information the United States has,” reports the Post.Yet Succar also mentions a factor that would render accurate databases, even if they existed, irrelevant: Bribes in Syria can get you official government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be. As the Post relates:“You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,” he said.“These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.”. . .http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/22007-syrian-leader-impossible-to-weed-terrorists-out-of-migrants-coming-to-u-s?tmpl=component&print=1

The Alien Nation on Its Way By Greg Richards American Thinker, November 26, 2015 . . . That is the result, but we still have to articulate the conservative argument: why is it a bad idea to welcome a migration of Muslims into America? Conservative resistance to this is characterized by liberals as bigotry. We know it isn't that. So what is it?

The problem is that Islam is a culture alien to the culture of America. Ours is a culture that has been built up:

* over 3,500 years in terms of Judaism – i.e., the Ten Commandments; * over 2,000 years in terms of Christianity; * over 500 years in terms of Protestantism;* over 300 years in terms of the Scottish Enlightenment – i.e., the primacy of the individual over the state; * over 250 years in terms of America itself, of liberty and constitutional republicanism, of the rights of minorities in the face of the majority.We are the heirs:

* of very specific conceptions of mankind and our unalienable rights; * of very specific relationships between the individual and the state; * of very specific Christian ideas of what we owe each other and how we treat each other – the golden rule, love thy neighbor as thyself; * of very specific ideas of the separation of church and state.

The Enlightenment split into two streams of thought. In the Scottish Enlightenment, to which the Founding Fathers were heirs, the individual comes before the state. In the French Enlightenment, the state is the highest expression of humanity and comes before the individual. This is the wellspring of fascism and, really, communism.

So, while America is part of Western civilization, we are a unique part. We have a distinct heritage and a distinct culture.

Islam is alien to that culture. It is based on dominance, not equality, within society and aggression toward and death for nonbelievers. It is a philosophy of constant war, of jihad against the infidel. It is a political philosophy that guides every aspect of society and the state. There is no right of the individual and no separation of church and state. Because it is based on a divine and perfect revelation – the Koran – organizing a society upon the desires of its members – democracy – is blasphemy. . . .http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/11/the_alien_nation_on_its_way.html

THE BLOG ALSO SUGGESTS:

What ISIS Really Wants

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)

NOW ADD UP THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT THE BUSH LIBRARY AND HILLARY AND BILLARY FOR BILLARY'S PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND PHONY FOUNDATION HAVE TAKEN IN BRIBES FROM MUSLIM DICTATORSHIPS.WATCH OBAMA GO GROVELING FOR DIRTY MUSLIM MONEY NOW FOR HIS PHONY FOUNDATION.

Lawless!

The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law

Overview: In Lawless, George Mason University law professor David E. Bernstein offers a scholarly and unsettling account of how the Obama Administration has undermined the Constitution and the rule of law. He documents how the President has presided over one constitutional debacle after another – from Obamacare to unauthorized wars in the Middle East to attempts to strip property owners, college students, religious groups, and conservative political activists of their rights, and more.

Respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers has been violated time and again. Whether in amending Obamacare on the fly or signing a memorandum legalizing millions of illegal immigrants, the current Administration ignores not only Congress, but also the Constitution’s critical checks and balances.

In Lawless, Professor Bernstein shows how the Constitution as well as the President’s own stated principles have been betrayed. In doing so, serious and potentially permanent damage has been done to our constitutional system and repairs must be addressed by the next President of the United States.Obama to Wannabe Illegals: Do as I Say, Not as I Do
By Mark Krikorian

In response the surge of Central Americans sneaking into Texas in the summer of 2014, the Obama administration launched an ad campaign in the sending countries earlier this year to stem the flow. The radio and TV spots assert that "there are no permits for the people trying to cross the border without papers" and promise "the immediate deportation of those trying to cross the border without documents."

None of it is true. There are permits for illegal-alien minors and families. Formally known as Notices to Appear but known colloquially in Spanish as permisos, they require the aliens to present themselves to immigration authorities by a certain date, until which they have temporary legal status. That gives them time enough to travel to join their relatives and disappear into the existing illegal population. And disappear they do, since, despite the tough promises, virtually none of them are deported, immediately or otherwise.

So it should come as no surprise to read today's AP report, which begins this way:

NO PRESIDENT HAS HAD MORE CONTEMPT FOR LEGALS, OUR LAWS AND BORDERS THAN MEXICO'S LA RAZA SUPREMACIST, BARACK OBAMA! NOT ONLY DOES OBAMA FUND THE MEX FASCIST MOVEMENT OF LA RAZA "The Race"BUT IT OPERATES OUT OF THE AMERICAN WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ!

November 3, 2015

Obama set to defy federal court on amnesty

By Rick MoranOnce again, President Obama is looking to defy Congress in implementing its immigration reform proposals.

This time, his administration is looking to also defy a federal court to achieve it.

A judge sitting on the 5th Circuit in Texas issued an injunction last June against the administration's regulatory plans to legalize millions of aliens in the U.S. illegally. The injunction was upheld by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, and the president's plan is now stalled while the administration works through the federal court system.Except now there are plans afoot to change the regulations pertaining to green cards that would accomplish almost everything the president can't get from Congress or the courts. A leaked memo from DHS outlines four plans the administration is considering.Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute:

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADsonly to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system. As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

Get a load of what the DHS bureaucrats think about illegals working in the U.S.:

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

Smith concludes: "Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016."I'm not sure that judge in Texas will let the administration get away with this. When the government began handing out green cards anyway in defiance of the injunction, the judge, Andrew Hanen, threatened to arrest the lot of them for contempt. He forced the government to recall the green cards immediately. There will be no circumventing the law in his court.But the plans may be untouchable because they don't directly stem from the series of executive orders currently being adjudicated. Of course, any plan to blanket the country in work permits for illegals will be challenged in court. But eventually, the administration may find a friendly judge who gives it the go-ahead.

Once again, President Obama is looking to defy Congress in implementing its immigration reform proposals.This time, his administration is looking to also defy a federal court to achieve it.A judge sitting on the 5th Circuit in Texas issued an injunction last June against the administration's regulatory plans to legalize millions of aliens in the U.S. illegally. The injunction was upheld by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, and the president's plan is now stalled while the administration works through the federal court system.Except now there are plans afoot to change the regulations pertaining to green cards that would accomplish almost everything the president can't get from Congress or the courts. A leaked memo from DHS outlines four plans the administration is considering.Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute:

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADsonly to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system. As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

Get a load of what the DHS bureaucrats think about illegals working in the U.S.:

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

Smith concludes: "Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016."I'm not sure that judge in Texas will let the administration get away with this. When the government began handing out green cards anyway in defiance of the injunction, the judge, Andrew Hanen, threatened to arrest the lot of them for contempt. He forced the government to recall the green cards immediately. There will be no circumventing the law in his court.But the plans may be untouchable because they don't directly stem from the series of executive orders currently being adjudicated. Of course, any plan to blanket the country in work permits for illegals will be challenged in court. But eventually, the administration may find a friendly judge who gives it the go-ahead.

A newly-leaked memo from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reveals the Obama administration is seeking to sidestep a federal court injunction that suspended portions of the president’s amnesty-based initiatives known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In short, Obama is determined to impose his transformational agenda on the nation by any means necessary.

According to the Hill, the document outlining the administration’s attempt to thumb its nose at the rule of law was prepared at a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last June, four months after a preliminary injunction was initially imposed by Texas Judge Andrew Hanen and subsequently left in place by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit’s final ruling on that injunction, either confirming or reversing it, is expected to occur in a matter of days.Apparently the Obama administration couldn’t care less.
. . .http://canadafreepress.com/article/76535

TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND BUILD THEIR LA RAZA "The Race" MEXICAN ILLEGAL PARTY BASE, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS RUTHLESSLY ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN WORKER, OUR LAWS ON HIRING ILLEGALS AND OUR BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED.

"The U.S. now ranks at, or near, the top of developed countries for income inequality. Job creation has lagged far behind population growth. Automation has erased some jobs, but corrupt, inept government leadership is responsible for the deplorable job- deficit-low wage situation."

"The federal government encourages the massive illegal and legal immigration that plays a huge role in job scarcity and income suppression for American workers. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, a viable economy cannot exist with open borders and unrestricted immigration. An oversupply of workers willing to work for less pay, the outsourcing of jobs, and visa-immigrant hiring allow companies to replace American workers with immigrants for reduced labor and benefit costs."

The Causes of Income Inequality

Income inequality has risen during the last several decades to heights last seen in the 1920s. Most of the income growth has gone to a small fraction of the population, the ultra-rich elites, while real wages for the bottom 90 percent has been stagnant since the 1980s. The U.S. now ranks at, or near, the top of developed countries for income inequality. Job creation has lagged far behind population growth. Automation has erased some jobs, but corrupt, inept government leadership is responsible for the deplorable job- deficit-low wage situation. Trade agreements are one cause of job and wage reduction. Over the last twenty years, we’ve amassed $10 trillion in trade deficits and exported 12 million manufacturing jobs, forcing workers to move into lower-wage service jobs. Government brags about the free trade agreements, CAFTA, NAFTA, KORUS, and TPP. But the “free” applies only to the foreign trading partners, which manipulate their currencies, pay sweatshop workers low wages, manufacture under environmentally-toxic conditions, and restrict U.S. imports. We hand over our technology, good-paying jobs, product labeling, and safety guarantees -- all to enrich multinational corporations and foreign industry. Industrial research and development have been decimated as companies move overseas or outsource jobs, leaving the nation a future of little technological innovation. The U.S. is left with hollowed-out industries and service jobs.

The federal government encourages the massive illegal and legal immigration that plays a huge role in job scarcity and income suppression for American workers. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, a viable economy cannot exist with open borders and unrestricted immigration. An oversupply of workers willing to work for less pay, the outsourcing of jobs, and visa-immigrant hiring allow companies to replace American workers with immigrants for reduced labor and benefit costs. A well-known example is that of Disney IT workers who were forced to train their cheaper immigrant replacements. It is no coincidence that the rise in immigration has occurred simultaneously with the rise of the welfare state. People unemployed, or in low-wage and part-time jobs, rely on government subsidies. The result is larger national debt, more corporate wealth, and declining wages.ObamaCare influences, and will influence to greater degrees, the lowering of incomes for Americans as healthcare costs rise. Higher premiums and deductions for health insurance are being shifted to employees, reducing benefits and wages. Medical care costs already have risen much faster than wages, leaving many struggling to pay for necessities. Ever-higher deductions mean that people can’t afford to use the insurance they are forced to buy because they can’t even pay the deductions. Another contributor to job deficiency and wage stagnation is the increased regulation and taxation of small businesses instituted by Obama’s executive orders, EPA overreach, and ObamaCare. Small businesses traditionally have created two-thirds of new jobs annually. The bright spot in the economy, small businesses have created 78.7 percent of new jobs since the recession. Today, faced with these government anti-business policies, small businesses are closing their doors at a faster rate than new businesses are opening. The small businesses that remain open often don’t expand because of Obamacare and government regulations.Income inequality is greatly impacted by the Federal Reserve’s policies of money-printing and zero interest rates, which have led to the funding of the financial and corporate markets while ignoring the needs of smaller businesses. The money supply and cheap lending has gone to the government, large corporations, and Wall Street, leaving the rest of the economy to sputter along with little capital and fewer jobs. The Fed’s policies of crony capitalism favor big business and big banks over that of smaller entities and are responsible for the increasing number of big business deals such as Walgreen's purchase of Rite Aid.

DEATH OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS

This government-driven, crony-capitalist economy defined by job scarcity and wage stagnation is the reason college graduates are burdened by $1.3 trillion debt, living with parents, can’t afford to marry or buy homes, and working as waitresses and bartenders. Job scarcity and low wages are the reasons we’re becoming a nation of renters rather than homeowners. They are the reasons that 51 percent of workers earn less than $30,000 a year. They are the reasons for the demise of the middle class and the burgeoning welfare rolls, the modern-day equivalent of slavery. Income inequality and its devastating consequences are seldom mentioned on the nightly news. The media and bogus government statistics paint rosy pictures about economic recovery, and government masks the bad economy with welfare so that we don’t see Great Depression bread lines. But the only recovery has been in the Federal Reserve’s inflated stock market, not in the main street economy, where 94 million working-age adults are unemployed and 47 million are on some welfare program. The “Made in America” displays weekly touted by ABC news are the few exceptions, rather than the rule, in an American economy of boarded-up stores and factories. The political implications of income inequality are most evident in the increasing rise and entrenchment of career politicians, supported by big donor funding and media favoritism. The integrity of the electoral process is endangered as election propaganda, funded by big money and hyped by corporate media bias, become more prominent in spreading lies, distortions, and innuendos to the voting public. Unrestricted campaign funding has given the moneyed elites first access to elected officials. At the same time, private-sector unions, small businesses, and citizens find their influence dwindling or irrelevant. This crony capitalism, resembling dictatorships and communist oligarchies, seriously threatens our democracy because money, power, and media control are consolidated in the hands of a few at the top. Voter apathy prevails, as voters feel increasingly powerless to change the course of events. The United States, a once great economic powerhouse and the largest creditor nation, has become the largest debtor nation, and is fast becoming a banana republic. Past and present elected authorities and public officials have stripped bare our industries, put the nation under a mountain of debt, and turned the U.S. into a welfare depository. Government leaders have intentionally failed to protect our borders, jobs, and freedoms. These public “servants” and the wealthy elites have garnered riches for themselves, and purposely impoverished citizens and future generations. The greatest threats to our economy and national security are not foreign countries or terrorists; they are the enemies inside, corrupt government leaders and the money masters they serve.

Income inequality has risen during the last several decades to heights last seen in the 1920s. Most of the income growth has gone to a small fraction of the population, the ultra-rich elites, while real wages for the bottom 90 percent has been stagnant since the 1980s. The U.S. now ranks at, or near, the top of developed countries for income inequality. Job creation has lagged far behind population growth. Automation has erased some jobs, but corrupt, inept government leadership is responsible for the deplorable job- deficit-low wage situation.Trade agreements are one cause of job and wage reduction. Over the last twenty years, we’ve amassed $10 trillion in trade deficits and exported 12 million manufacturing jobs, forcing workers to move into lower-wage service jobs. Government brags about the free trade agreements, CAFTA, NAFTA, KORUS, and TPP. But the “free” applies only to the foreign trading partners, which manipulate their currencies, pay sweatshop workers low wages, manufacture under environmentally-toxic conditions, and restrict U.S. imports. We hand over our technology, good-paying jobs, product labeling, and safety guarantees -- all to enrich multinational corporations and foreign industry. Industrial research and development have been decimated as companies move overseas or outsource jobs, leaving the nation a future of little technological innovation. The U.S. is left with hollowed-out industries and service jobs. The federal government encourages the massive illegal and legal immigration that plays a huge role in job scarcity and income suppression for American workers. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, a viable economy cannot exist with open borders and unrestricted immigration. An oversupply of workers willing to work for less pay, the outsourcing of jobs, and visa-immigrant hiring allow companies to replace American workers with immigrants for reduced labor and benefit costs. A well-known example is that of Disney IT workers who were forced to train their cheaper immigrant replacements. It is no coincidence that the rise in immigration has occurred simultaneously with the rise of the welfare state. People unemployed, or in low-wage and part-time jobs, rely on government subsidies. The result is larger national debt, more corporate wealth, and declining wages.ObamaCare influences, and will influence to greater degrees, the lowering of incomes for Americans as healthcare costs rise. Higher premiums and deductions for health insurance are being shifted to employees, reducing benefits and wages. Medical care costs already have risen much faster than wages, leaving many struggling to pay for necessities. Ever-higher deductions mean that people can’t afford to use the insurance they are forced to buy because they can’t even pay the deductions.Another contributor to job deficiency and wage stagnation is the increased regulation and taxation of small businesses instituted by Obama’s executive orders, EPA overreach, and ObamaCare. Small businesses traditionally have created two-thirds of new jobs annually. The bright spot in the economy, small businesses have created 78.7 percent of new jobs since the recession. Today, faced with these government anti-business policies, small businesses are closing their doors at a faster rate than new businesses are opening. The small businesses that remain open often don’t expand because of Obamacare and government regulations.Income inequality is greatly impacted by the Federal Reserve’s policies of money-printing and zero interest rates, which have led to the funding of the financial and corporate markets while ignoring the needs of smaller businesses. The money supply and cheap lending has gone to the government, large corporations, and Wall Street, leaving the rest of the economy to sputter along with little capital and fewer jobs. The Fed’s policies of crony capitalism favor big business and big banks over that of smaller entities and are responsible for the increasing number of big business deals such as Walgreen's purchase of Rite Aid.This government-driven, crony-capitalist economy defined by job scarcity and wage stagnation is the reason college graduates are burdened by $1.3 trillion debt, living with parents, can’t afford to marry or buy homes, and working as waitresses and bartenders. Job scarcity and low wages are the reasons we’re becoming a nation of renters rather than homeowners. They are the reasons that 51 percent of workers earn less than $30,000 a year. They are the reasons for the demise of the middle class and the burgeoning welfare rolls, the modern-day equivalent of slavery. Income inequality and its devastating consequences are seldom mentioned on the nightly news. The media and bogus government statistics paint rosy pictures about economic recovery, and government masks the bad economy with welfare so that we don’t see Great Depression bread lines. But the only recovery has been in the Federal Reserve’s inflated stock market, not in the main street economy, where 94 million working-age adults are unemployed and 47 million are on some welfare program. The “Made in America” displays weekly touted by ABC news are the few exceptions, rather than the rule, in an American economy of boarded-up stores and factories. The political implications of income inequality are most evident in the increasing rise and entrenchment of career politicians, supported by big donor funding and media favoritism. The integrity of the electoral process is endangered as election propaganda, funded by big money and hyped by corporate media bias, become more prominent in spreading lies, distortions, and innuendos to the voting public. Unrestricted campaign funding has given the moneyed elites first access to elected officials. At the same time, private-sector unions, small businesses, and citizens find their influence dwindling or irrelevant. This crony capitalism, resembling dictatorships and communist oligarchies, seriously threatens our democracy because money, power, and media control are consolidated in the hands of a few at the top. Voter apathy prevails, as voters feel increasingly powerless to change the course of events. The United States, a once great economic powerhouse and the largest creditor nation, has become the largest debtor nation, and is fast becoming a banana republic. Past and present elected authorities and public officials have stripped bare our industries, put the nation under a mountain of debt, and turned the U.S. into a welfare depository. Government leaders have intentionally failed to protect our borders, jobs, and freedoms. These public “servants” and the wealthy elites have garnered riches for themselves, and purposely impoverished citizens and future generations. The greatest threats to our economy and national security are not foreign countries or terrorists; they are the enemies inside, corrupt government leaders and the money masters they serve.

Appallingly Dishonest Pew Study on Immigration Trend from Mexico

If you want to know the depths of dishonesty and obfuscation the liberal elite employ in order to distort the reality on any given issue, take a look at this Pew research report on immigration from Mexico. Pew claims that migration from Mexico is down to such a point that there is net out-migration—that is to say more Mexicans in America have died or gone back home than returned.

As we reported several months ago, according to the most up-to-date census data, based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), there has been a massive spike in net migration from Mexico since 2014, precisely after Obama and the Gang of Eight began encouraging illegal immigration in a number of ways.

Media outlets, from The Hill and Politico to the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, are breathlessly promoting the headline of this report as if it reflected the truth of the moment. Their broader message was: “See, the right wing nuts are going crazy about a border crisis when, in reality, there is zero net migration from Mexico.”

The one problem? Pew was using old data from 2009-2014.

There is nothing new about this. Pew has been reporting on a number of occasions that in light of the recession a number of illegal immigrants from Mexico returned home. But guess what? As we reported several months ago, according to the most up-to-date census data, based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), there has been a massive spike in net migration from Mexico since 2014, precisely after Obama and the Gang of Eight began encouraging illegal immigration in a number of ways. The fact that 80 percent of illegal immigrants are now officially shielded from deportation and most others are unlikely to ever encounter resistance has clearly contributed to the surge. Intelligence reports based on interviews of illegal aliens bear out the growing perception that our policies incentivize illegal immigration.
Yet, Pew was dishonest enough to report this data as if it reflects the current reality, even though the current trend portends a political dynamic completely the opposite of that which they are trying to implant in the media cycle.
In reality, this Pew report proves every premise of the border hawks. The fact that some illegal aliens returned home following the recession demonstrates how the false choice between amnesty and mass deportation is a straw-man argument. Mere passive economic disincentives from a recession were strong enough to entice illegal immigrants to repatriate. Imagine the effects of cutting off welfare and education benefits, jobs, and unqualified birthright citizenship? Every time disincentives were effectively rolled out, a number of illegal immigrants voluntarily returned home.
And that is what has been so tragic about Obama’s amnesty programs from 2012-2015 and Rubio’s amnesty bill in 2013. The allure of mass amnesty completely reversed the tide and has spawned one of the sharpest increases in net migration from Mexico in years. Incentives and disincentives matter in terms of immigration policy and border control.
Here are the numbers obfuscated by Pew and ignored by the media:

From 2009-2014, net migration was -140,000. Because of the recession, roughly 140,000 more Mexican nationals left the country than migrated in from Mexico.

Yet, from July 2014 through June 2015, the trend was completely reversed. There was a 740,000 net increase in Mexican migration. The population from Mexico grew 449,000 in just the first 6 months of 2015 alone!

And this doesn’t factor in the massive influx from Central American countries. There has been a 460,000 net increase in immigration from Central America since July 2014.